not sure where in this mess of links or quotes was anything saying the departed somehow go right to the final judgement......just because Orthodoxy doesn't truly define the nature of -where- and -how- .....doesn't make it some instant zoom to heaven either....

That the truth nothing is guaranteed, we find out at the Judgement, until then we must continue on the right path.

Well of course...

I just meant that mentioning prayers for the dead are useless 'unless' there is someplace 'in between'.......as being an issue...to me seems not one...since the notion there is NOT somewhere before the final judgement is not taught.....

so just wondering where the issue is....

Logged

All opinions expressed by myself are quite tragically my own, and not those of any other poster or wall hangings.

not sure where in this mess of links or quotes was anything saying the departed somehow go right to the final judgement......just because Orthodoxy doesn't truly define the nature of -where- and -how- .....doesn't make it some instant zoom to heaven either....

That the truth nothing is guaranteed, we find out at the Judgement, until then we must continue on the right path.

Well of course...

I just meant that mentioning prayers for the dead are useless 'unless' there is someplace 'in between'.......as being an issue...to me seems not one...since the notion there is NOT somewhere before the final judgement is not taught.....

so just wondering where the issue is....

Yes that is true, even before Orthodoxy showed up on my radar, I concluded that there a in between place, otherwise what the point for prayers for the dead? Even being a altar boy for a few funerals now, it interesting how one looks either painful or at peace at their death, it must be a foretaste of our destination.

To borrow an Aristotelian/Thomistic distinction, perhaps you could question whether the inconsistencies pertain to the substance or the accidents. Presumably, what you should find most bothersome are perceived inconsistencies in substance, the dogmatic and doctrinal. How the substance of the faith manifests itself concretely over time and will always be inconsistent because the faith must be conveyed and lived in a concrete time and place.

Where the substance of the faith changes, though, there is a real problem. Consider that Roman Catholicism argues that the faith affirmatively develops over time. For example, scholasticism is based on the idea that the philosopher-theologians in medieval universities were better equipped to elaborate the faith than were the apostles. Not only does this supposition explain the difference between St. John's Exact Exposition and later scholastic writings, which you specifically referenced, but it provides an overall framework for evaluating the differences between the two.

Perhaps it would be good to consider the question who seems more concerned about innovations. There will always be individuals and groups seeking to introduce some novelty. Which do you think does a more consistent job of rejecting novelty, both at the present and historically: Orthodoxy or Catholicism?

Indulgences, for example, don't really make a lot of sense in Orthodox theology as far as I can tell since there's no temporal purgatory to buy your way out of.

Then why again have I eaten so much crappy koliva through the years?

Even if it's not a pit of fire where our impurities burned away as defined by the Latinate fever dreamers of the Middle Ages, praying for the dead doesn't really make sense without an intermediate state between now and the final judgement.

I knew about the vague version of it in the Confession of Dositheus, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to call that a purgatory since it doesn't seem to have quite the exacting character that you see in Catholicism. It's one thing to pray and eat koliva for them, another to earn or buy a certificate for X number of years off, right?

Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

But I feel like a lot of the deceit is so upfront and available on the internet to the point that it is really frustrating...

There, I highlighted the source of your difficulties: the interwebs.

On one hand, as others in this thread mentioned, you have the deep and historic doctrinal divisions between the Eastern and Western Churches, namely papal supremacy and the Filioque. There are many other differences, but methinks that an individual discerning which Church has retained the fullness of the Apostolic Faith has to research these two doctrines in history, Tradition and Scripture.

On the other hand, there is no perfect Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox parish on earth. Yet, whichever Church you're led to by God, you'll have to live its life in a parish, with less than saintly parishioners, known to post in online forums.

So, learn the Faith and learn to live with other Christians striving to overcome their limitations in a parish, for they'll have to live with you too.

For example, scholasticism is based on the idea that the philosopher-theologians in medieval universities were better equipped to elaborate the faith than were the apostles. Not only does this supposition explain the difference between St. John's Exact Exposition and later scholastic writings, which you specifically referenced, but it provides an overall framework for evaluating the differences between the two.

I don't know how you could possibly prove that. Might as well say that St. Justin Martyr or Pseudo-Dionysius thought themselves better expositors than the Apostles.

For clarity, the point I was trying to make is that St. John of Damascus was attempting to summarize the teachings of the Fathers; whereas, the later Scholastics were attempting to synthesize philosophical thought and Christian doctrine. The former is exposition, while the latter necessarily involves augmentation. The distinction is not a firm one, which is why I suggested it as a framework for comparison. In applying that framework, it is somewhat easier, perhaps based solely on chronology, to see St. Justin Martyr and other early writers as attempting to explain Christian doctrine using an existing philosophical framework. In other words, the use of philosophy categorizes the doctrine while not creating it. The later scholastics seem to work in the opposite direction. But it's a fine distinction.

I guess? It seems to me that theologians of every era have had a challenge to "be the bee" and accept what is true in pagan/secular learning and then figure out to harmonize it with the Truth of Christianity. Seems like trying to discern "directions" is kind hair-splitty. I guess someone more versed in the Scholastics and St. Justin will have to correct me.

Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

My feelings from having read some of the Summa (summa the Summa?) and comparing it with Saint John Damascene's Exact Exposition is that it's really more a difference of degree than quality between them. They both rely on a fastidious adherence to a mainly Aristotelian terminology (in Saint John's case, he takes a whole book to pre-define his terms). St Thomas Aquinas' exhaustive approach of taking every proposition and subjecting it to arguments and counter-arguments is way beyond what Damascene does, but they both stem from the same impulse to systematize theology and provide it with a strong philosophical underpinning. I don't see Aquinas positing his approach as superior to the Fathers', anymore than Damascene does. Perhaps later medieval Catholics thought of it that way but as I recall the Summa makes clear at the very beginning that philosophy and reason are not a substitute for divine revelation and experience.

Logged

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

My feelings from having read some of the Summa (summa the Summa?) and comparing it with Saint John Damascene's Exact Exposition is that it's really more a difference of degree than quality between them. They both rely on a fastidious adherence to a mainly Aristotelian terminology (in Saint John's case, he takes a whole book to pre-define his terms). St Thomas Aquinas' exhaustive approach of taking every proposition and subjecting it to arguments and counter-arguments is way beyond what Damascene does, but they both stem from the same impulse to systematize theology and provide it with a strong philosophical underpinning. I don't see Aquinas positing his approach as superior to the Fathers', anymore than Damascene does. Perhaps later medieval Catholics thought of it that way but as I recall the Summa makes clear at the very beginning that philosophy and reason are not a substitute for divine revelation and experience.

Well observed, altho I don't know enough of both men's works to corroborate. However, bear in mind the difference between Thomas and Thomism. What if some group were to spring up and take that book you linked to recently, the Chinese Tao - interpreted Gospels, and seek to elevate it to supremacy in the Church? The Romans have not simply read Thomas and expressed some appreciation for his insights, but made him a school and that school the cornerstone of Christian philosophy. He is even in their catechisms. This makes a difference.

Logged

"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue

Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Trust the Holy Mysteries. Trust the Holy Sacraments. Trust the consensus of the Saints and Church Fathers and Mothers. If you are looking for a perfectly consistent religion, Orthodox ain't it. The fullness of God in a single man, three persons in One, bread and wine becoming Body and Blood... mystery abounds. Embrace the mystery, for there is salvation within.

Selam

Logged

"Whether it’s the guillotine, the hangman’s noose, or reciprocal endeavors of militaristic horror, radical evil will never be recompensed with radical punishment. The only answer, the only remedy, and the only truly effective response to radical evil is radical love."+ Gebre Menfes Kidus +http://bookstore.authorhouse.com/Products/SKU-000984270/Rebel-Song.aspx

I've never been Roman Catholic, but I'd ask OP whether it really feels better, when one stops to consider, to have the diverse Christian ideas arbitrarily winnowed and narrowed into something like a single set of ideas, as Rome has often made it her job to do? Since the diversity still sprung up, without doubt -- this is the nature of Christian history -- and was simply handled in Roman Catholicism before OP could become bothered by it. If the Orthodox sources (assuming these are Orthodox sources) you're reading are not teaching heresy, then I personally would feel more bothered to have them suppressed by an arbitrary selection from above than simply to become aware there is diversity of understanding.

Logged

"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue

Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

My feelings from having read some of the Summa (summa the Summa?) and comparing it with Saint John Damascene's Exact Exposition is that it's really more a difference of degree than quality between them. They both rely on a fastidious adherence to a mainly Aristotelian terminology (in Saint John's case, he takes a whole book to pre-define his terms). St Thomas Aquinas' exhaustive approach of taking every proposition and subjecting it to arguments and counter-arguments is way beyond what Damascene does, but they both stem from the same impulse to systematize theology and provide it with a strong philosophical underpinning. I don't see Aquinas positing his approach as superior to the Fathers', anymore than Damascene does. Perhaps later medieval Catholics thought of it that way but as I recall the Summa makes clear at the very beginning that philosophy and reason are not a substitute for divine revelation and experience.

Well observed, altho I don't know enough of both men's works to corroborate. However, bear in mind the difference between Thomas and Thomism. What if some group were to spring up and take that book you linked to recently, the Chinese Tao - interpreted Gospels, and seek to elevate it to supremacy in the Church? The Romans have not simply read Thomas and expressed some appreciation for his insights, but made him a school and that school the cornerstone of Christian philosophy. He is even in their catechisms. This makes a difference.

Indeed. St. Thomas Aquinas' works are at a level of their own and many of his contributions enriched the Church. However, there's him and then there's Scholasticism, or the school of thought that tried to imitated St. Thomas' approach in Theology, often without his saintliness. In just a few generations Scholasticism became hollow and lacked light. It's more recent spawns, neo Scholasticism and neo Thomism are somewhere in between the worst of Scholasticism and the least of St. Thomas.

Personally, I prefer to study Aristotle separately from St. Thomas and to read the Church Fathers, skipping St. Thomas.

Some of the inconsistency just come from the anti catholics way of thinking.

Mary was prepurified for many orthodox church father but when the catholics consider it a doctrine it become a heresy

I'm sure you've read good discussions of this subject here in these forums. It seems you read, but did not absorb.

Logged

"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue

Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Some of the inconsistency just come from the anti catholics way of thinking.

Mary was prepurified for many orthodox church father but when the catholics consider it a doctrine it become a heresy

I'm sure you've read good discussions of this subject here in these forums. It seems you read, but did not absorb.

No i didn't read on this forum about this subject. I don't read old discussion in general. But Iam sure that many Orthodox church father believe that Mary was prepurified like the Augustinian Orthodox saint Gregory Palamas.

Some of the inconsistency just come from the anti catholics way of thinking.

Mary was prepurified for many orthodox church father but when the catholics consider it a doctrine it become a heresy

I'm sure you've read good discussions of this subject here in these forums. It seems you read, but did not absorb.

No i didn't read on this forum about this subject. I don't read old discussion in general. But Iam sure that many Orthodox church father believe that Mary was prepurified like the Augustinian Orthodox saint Gregory Palamas.

St. Gregory's version AFAICT is a progressive purifying down through her ancestry. It's a far cry from the Catholic version that relies on a specific view of original sin that somehow just skips Mary's normal conception by sinful parents.

Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

I've never been Roman Catholic, but I'd ask OP whether it really feels better, when one stops to consider, to have the diverse Christian ideas arbitrarily winnowed and narrowed into something like a single set of ideas, as Rome has often made it her job to do? Since the diversity still sprung up, without doubt -- this is the nature of Christian history -- and was simply handled in Roman Catholicism before OP could become bothered by it. If the Orthodox sources (assuming these are Orthodox sources) you're reading are not teaching heresy, then I personally would feel more bothered to have them suppressed by an arbitrary selection from above than simply to become aware there is diversity of understanding.

Maybe it's my Roman Catholic upbringing, but I would prefer something much more narrow; although I am a very, very scrupulous individual who doesn't trust my own conscience at points.

See, here's the thing - in Church history, the line between Faith and mere discipline is something that is often grey.

Let's take iconoclasm - as we are all aware, iconoclasm is a heresy, and refusing to have iconography or sacred artwork is to war against the Church, as stated by the 7th Ecumenical Council. When something like this can put you outside the Church, such speculation about similar or even more serious topics makes me hesitant and makes me uncomfortable.

Let's take statues for instance. I've read some Orthodox apologetics that say something along the lines of "using statues is equivalent to idolatry," while other Orthodox apologetics will argue statues, as long as they meet some Orthodox minimal requirement of expressing the Faith.

So, who is right?

The Orthodox Church I go to has a statue on top of the gate. I'm an idolater? Will I go to hell for attending this parish instead of a "more correct" parish?

What about Orthodox Churches which have 2.5 D icons or carvings? Are they idolaters? What about the Russian Orthodox Church in the Middle Ages which used statues?

Then why are the Orthodox so weary about the use of statues? Is it something that is merely culturally preserved?

And there was a period of time in which - when I reverted back to Catholicism for a bit - I started saying the Rosary daily, and it was a very powerful prayer in fighting against demonic temptations (I didn't use my imagination). In one of my habitually grave sins, I manage to stay clear of it for about like 3 months - which is a huge step up then the regressed vicious cycle of lust - from the Rosary.

But it's a heterodox - ish - devotion according to some conservative Orthodox out there, who believe that it is something that should be forbidden from Church practice. So, when I was praying the Rosary - was it God helping me overcome my sins through the prayers of the Theotokos, or was it merely the devil lightening up on the temptations, allowing me to sin otherwise?

I asked my Father confessor about this, and he said it was okay to pray as long as it doesn't pronounce anything heterodox (he told me to avoid any "Immaculate Conception" rosaries if that is a thing) and as long as I don't use my imagination - but what if he's wrong? What if I'll be praying as a Catholic heterodox and go to hell for it?

And maybe it's just me, but on such issues where there are no clear answers, it's frustrating to me, especially on issues that are more gray in terms of morality - like contraception within marriage.

It's annoying that there hasn't been a Council which can just rule on these matters efficiently.

It allows for more freedom, but I don't want to end up like Origen or Theodoret.

Some of the inconsistency just come from the anti catholics way of thinking.

Mary was prepurified for many orthodox church father but when the catholics consider it a doctrine it become a heresy

I'm sure you've read good discussions of this subject here in these forums. It seems you read, but did not absorb.

No i didn't read on this forum about this subject. I don't read old discussion in general. But Iam sure that many Orthodox church father believe that Mary was prepurified like the Augustinian Orthodox saint Gregory Palamas.

St. Gregory's version AFAICT is a progressive purifying down through her ancestry. It's a far cry from the Catholic version that relies on a specific view of original sin that somehow just skips Mary's normal conception by sinful parents.

Mary father and mother didn't make any sin and she is more purified then them. Yes for palamas it is a progressive prepurification for Mary but at the end Mary is full prepurified. Palamas was Augustinian.

@LivenotoneviLThe answer is No. You won’t go to hell for being unable to untangle the confusion about Orthodox teachings. The important thing is to follow the spirit of the law: Love God and love your neighbors. Partake in the sacraments and obey your leaders. And if your Priest or Bishop willingly misguides you, that’s on them, not you.

@LivenotoneviLThe answer is No. You won’t go to hell for being unable to untangle the confusion about Orthodox teachings. The important thing is to follow the spirit of the law: Love God and love your neighbors. Partake in the sacraments and obey your leaders. And if your Priest or Bishop willingly misguides you, that’s on them, not you.

I think Roman Catholicism is going through a massive period of inconsistency as well, and they have been from the 50s onwards under Pius XII, but especially from Vatican II onwards.

However, here's the thing - the liberalism in the Roman Catholic Church is so apparent that it is rather easy to reject some novel teachings and embrace traditional teaching.

Let's take an experience I had with a Novus Ordo priest (whom I pray for because he has been having a faith crisis for a few years now), and I told him that I found my prayer life going downwards and lacking motivation from my Roman Catholic prayer rule (of saying 6 of the 7 hours throughout the day and saying 5 decades of the Rosary), and his response was "you should look into practicing some Catholic mysticism; read the works of John of the Cross and Theresa of Avila."

That's the equivalent of saying "Look into Orthodox mysticism on your own; read and pray according to Ignatius Bryanchaninov."

Succinct to say I didn't take his advice, because without guidance from someone more experience, that is a foolish endeavor. It's a very obviously unInspired thing to let the layperson do whatever they want in prayer.

I visited Georgetown recently, and they were selling a book which was a collection of "inspired prayers" to use, which included not only Catholic prayer, but also Orthodox prayers, Hindu prayers, and Shinto prayers.

It was so obviously liberal and evil it is quite easy to reject it.

The liberalism within Orthodoxy is much, much more subtle; and in Orthodoxy, the conservatives are sometimes way too irrational (the OCA and GOARCH are heretical because of the new calendar!).

@LivenotoneviLThe answer is No. You won’t go to hell for being unable to untangle the confusion about Orthodox teachings. The important thing is to follow the spirit of the law: Love God and love your neighbors. Partake in the sacraments and obey your leaders. And if your Priest or Bishop willingly misguides you, that’s on them, not you.

That's the equivalent of saying "Look into Orthodox mysticism on your own; read and pray according to Ignatius Bryanchaninov."

Succinct to say I didn't take his advice, because without guidance from someone more experience, that is a foolish endeavor. It's a very obviously unInspired thing to let the layperson do whatever they want in prayer.

This idea--go find a worthy text and use it for direction/guidance--is the advice I've seen several Orthodox saints give, including St. Theophan, St. Justin Popovich, and (funnily enough) St. Ignatius Brianchaninov. Also the advice given by St. Paul, fwiw.

That's the equivalent of saying "Look into Orthodox mysticism on your own; read and pray according to Ignatius Bryanchaninov."

Succinct to say I didn't take his advice, because without guidance from someone more experience, that is a foolish endeavor. It's a very obviously unInspired thing to let the layperson do whatever they want in prayer.

This idea--go find a worthy text and use it for direction/guidance--is the advice I've seen several Orthodox saints give, including St. Theophan, St. Justin Popovich, and (funnily enough) St. Ignatius Brianchaninov. Also the advice given by St. Paul, fwiw.

Well, maybe I'm just a prideful idiot, but I don't trust myself for spiritual guidance - I would rather listen to someone more experienced or knowledgeable than me like a priest. Considering how easy it is to be deluded from both the Orthodox side and Catholic side.

I would certainly agree that having someone experienced to help guide you (in person or at least in direct contact) is much better than not having such a person. The thing is, such people aren't necessarily easy to come by, especially since many such people are most likely living in obscurity. The very things that make them experienced and worthy of giving guidance (humility, thoughtfulness, etc.) also tends to make them less likely to be prominently recognized as such, and less likely to accept such a role even if you ask them to be an adviser. Outside of a monastery, the path most people probably have are that they can read the Scripture and other spiritual materials, and discuss things with friends and clergy. In some things the person would be bound to follow the guidance of the priest (e.g., penances given in confession), but the relationship probably mostly involves advice of a much less binding nature. I can understand hoping to get some help and being told, basically, 'go read a book.' I'm not trying to say that isn't frustrating. There may be a reason for it though--maybe he would not be good for giving what you were asking for, or maybe he thought what he was referencing was infinitely better than his own advice would have been. But, "the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force"--whatever stands in the way, people are called to continue forward.

The Orthodox Church I go to has a statue on top of the gate. I'm an idolater? Will I go to hell for attending this parish instead of a "more correct" parish?

See, I think this encapsulates a lot of your struggle. Somehow, you seem always to be looking for the trick. But the Church is not for our damnation but for our salvation. If the Church presents you with an icon "in the round," then venerate it with joy. If she holds some important council and removes that icon, then feel gratitude for the safeguard. I am speaking purely hypothetically, and yet these would be two positives, not one the positive and for you to find which as a trick ... This terrible anxiety lest God trick you into damnation must be a painful wound in the soul. The Orthodox Church is an ancient Apostolic church that does its best to work in unity, but this is not the same as to pose in unison. The former is a balm -- "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments; as the dew of Hermon" etc. -- the latter a slavery that, I suspect, must lead to just such suspicion as you seem to suffer from. Our very long history of perceiving and handling heresy is renowned, but most of life is not a matter of heresy ...

Now a word on proselytizing with misguided zeal, as some of the resources you first alluded to seem to consist of. Christ speaks of those religious who in their zeal "bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders" and specifically of those who "compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves": "Woe unto you, ye blind guides!" The Church beckons for the healing of the soul, and what instead torments your sincere soul is almost surely not in the spirit of the Church.

Logged

"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue

Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Some of the inconsistency just come from the anti catholics way of thinking.

Mary was prepurified for many orthodox church father but when the catholics consider it a doctrine it become a heresy

I'm sure you've read good discussions of this subject here in these forums. It seems you read, but did not absorb.

No i didn't read on this forum about this subject. I don't read old discussion in general. But Iam sure that many Orthodox church father believe that Mary was prepurified like the Augustinian Orthodox saint Gregory Palamas.

St. Gregory's version AFAICT is a progressive purifying down through her ancestry. It's a far cry from the Catholic version that relies on a specific view of original sin that somehow just skips Mary's normal conception by sinful parents.

Mary father and mother didn't make any sin and she is more purified then them. Yes for palamas it is a progressive prepurification for Mary but at the end Mary is full prepurified. Palamas was Augustinian.

I don't know if anyone would go so far as to say her parents were sinless, but you're missing the point that this isn't a fiat like in the RCC. It's highly debatable as to whether the Orthodox Church teaches we're literally punished for Adam and Eve's sin (as opposed to just inheriting their fallen wills), and thus whether the IC was even necessary.

The Catholic view also falls victim to an infinite regress (how could a Mary with no original sin come from parents that had it?) that St. Gregory doesn't.

Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Some of the inconsistency just come from the anti catholics way of thinking.

Mary was prepurified for many orthodox church father but when the catholics consider it a doctrine it become a heresy

I'm sure you've read good discussions of this subject here in these forums. It seems you read, but did not absorb.

No i didn't read on this forum about this subject. I don't read old discussion in general. But Iam sure that many Orthodox church father believe that Mary was prepurified like the Augustinian Orthodox saint Gregory Palamas.

St. Gregory's version AFAICT is a progressive purifying down through her ancestry. It's a far cry from the Catholic version that relies on a specific view of original sin that somehow just skips Mary's normal conception by sinful parents.

Mary father and mother didn't make any sin and she is more purified then them. Yes for palamas it is a progressive prepurification for Mary but at the end Mary is full prepurified. Palamas was Augustinian.

I don't know if anyone would go so far as to say her parents were sinless, but you're missing the point that this isn't a fiat like in the RCC. It's highly debatable as to whether the Orthodox Church teaches we're literally punished for Adam and Eve's sin (as opposed to just inheriting their fallen wills), and thus whether the IC was even necessary.

The Catholic view also falls victim to an infinite regress (how could a Mary with no original sin come from parents that had it?) that St. Gregory doesn't.

If we take Palamas he is considered to be Augustinian by many scholar, he seem he was Augustinian. Mary prepurification is an idea by many orthodox church father. Why the need to talk of prepurification, being prepurified also make her different then us in the way you are thinking.

As Palamas talk about a progressive prepurification for Mary, here is the answer of your question.

So what if he was Augustinian? The idea that Augustine was a heretic is a fringe idea in Orthodoxy anyway. And Augustine is not necessarily the same as the Catholic and Protestant readings of him.

Quote

Mary prepurification is an idea by many orthodox church father.

Got more than one or two?

Quote

Why the need to talk of prepurification, being prepurified also make her different then us in the way you are thinking.

As Palamas talk about a progressive prepurification for Mary, here is the answer of your question.

No, not really. Maybe in an Orthodox "ancestral sin" sense, but not a Catholic. If Mary had to be without original sin in order for Christ to save us (ie. so that He could be without sin), then she could not not logically also have been cleansed of original sin based on the Cross. The Immaculate Conception is a self-contradictory idea.

And even if it did make sense, in order for her to be sinless it would have had to have been Immaculate Conceptions all the way down her ancestry, but that's not what St. Gregory was saying. Western-style original sin is not really something that can be progressively purified out, as far as I can tell.

Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

So what if he was Augustinian? The idea that Augustine was a heretic is a fringe idea in Orthodoxy anyway. And Augustine is not necessarily the same as the Catholic and Protestant readings of him.

Quote

Mary prepurification is an idea by many orthodox church father.

Got more than one or two?

Quote

Why the need to talk of prepurification, being prepurified also make her different then us in the way you are thinking.

As Palamas talk about a progressive prepurification for Mary, here is the answer of your question.

No, not really. Maybe in an Orthodox "ancestral sin" sense, but not a Catholic. If Mary had to be without original sin in order for Christ to save us (ie. so that He could be without sin), then she could not not logically also have been cleansed of original sin based on the Cross. The Immaculate Conception is a self-contradictory idea.

And even if it did make sense, in order for her to be sinless it would have had to have been Immaculate Conceptions all the way down her ancestry, but that's not what St. Gregory was saying. Western-style original sin is not really something that can be progressively purified out, as far as I can tell.

THe idea that Augustin is a heretic is just an anti catholic idea.

If we consider that the original sin is a state of deprivation that we take it from Adam after the fall, we can accept that Mary wasn't in this state from the time that she was born.

We both agree Marry absolute sinless, so the problem what is the teaching of orthodox about ancestral/original sin is the essential question.

I agree with you that we are not obliged to believe Mary prepurification but consider it a weird idea is the problem and just come from an anti catholics way of thinking. For me personnally it is not an important doctrine. But for me talking about prepurification is not different then talking about immaculate conception. Many theologian from the both church was against it.

I will open later a topic about that but i will read the older topic here i will search for them. So let's complete this discussion in the tnew topic. As it is not the main idea of this subject.

Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

However, here's the thing - the liberalism in the Roman Catholic Church is so apparent that it is rather easy to reject some novel teachings and embrace traditional teaching.

I cannot possibly imagine the faithful returning to a proper liturgy like the Tridentine or to the ascetic practices that have been the norm for centuries up to VII. Once accustomed to junk food, real food would give them indigestion.

Quote from: LivenotoneviL

Let's take an experience I had with a Novus Ordo priest (whom I pray for because he has been having a faith crisis for a few years now), and I told him that I found my prayer life going downwards and lacking motivation from my Roman Catholic prayer rule (of saying 6 of the 7 hours throughout the day and saying 5 decades of the Rosary), and his response was "you should look into practicing some Catholic mysticism; read the works of John of the Cross and Theresa of Avila."

The only proper advice to a young layman would be that you pray too much. As someone who was a secular Discalced Carmelite who read almost all of the works of Sts. Teresa of Jesus and John of the Cross in their original languages, I was under the obligation of praying the hours, but only 3 of the 7, since I was not a monk and had many responsibilities in the world for others. Yet, I was being formed in community into this mystic tradition. The idea that it suffices to pick up a book in such a secularized world to become a mystic is quaint, to say the least. But more likely that he just didn't know you at all, given your obvious struggles with scrupulosity.

Quote from: LivenotoneviL

I visited Georgetown recently, and they were selling a book which was a collection of "inspired prayers" to use, which included not only Catholic prayer, but also Orthodox prayers, Hindu prayers, and Shinto prayers.

It was so obviously liberal and evil it is quite easy to reject it.

It was easy for you, but if it's still up for sale at GU, it's because it finds buyers. The corollary is not so encouraging either: I doubt that a book on traditional prayers would be embraced and sell like hotcakes.

No, not really. Maybe in an Orthodox "ancestral sin" sense, but not a Catholic. If Mary had to be without original sin in order for Christ to save us (ie. so that He could be without sin), then she could not not logically also have been cleansed of original sin based on the Cross. The Immaculate Conception is a self-contradictory idea.

Very good. I don't know if this has been brought up on the forums.

Quote

And even if it did make sense, in order for her to be sinless it would have had to have been Immaculate Conceptions all the way down her ancestry, but that's not what St. Gregory was saying. Western-style original sin is not really something that can be progressively purified out, as far as I can tell.

Also very good, and has been said many times on the forums, but champions of the Immaculate Conception here just can't seem to get their heads around this obvious problem.

Logged

"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue

Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

No, not really. Maybe in an Orthodox "ancestral sin" sense, but not a Catholic. If Mary had to be without original sin in order for Christ to save us (ie. so that He could be without sin), then she could not not logically also have been cleansed of original sin based on the Cross. The Immaculate Conception is a self-contradictory idea.

Very good. I don't know if this has been brought up on the forums.

However, Catholics came up with the idea that the merits of Cross were retroactively applied to Mary in time.

Rather, to me, the ideas of "ancestral sin", which preserves the inherent goodness of human kind, and St. Athanasius' quip, "what has not been assumed has not been redeemed", which requires Christ to inherit from Mary the same human nature common to all, led me to fully agree with Met. Ware that this the Immaculate Conception is a most unnecessary dogma.

Of course, once original sin was made a dogma, the Immaculate Conception is a very necessary dogma, lest Christ, who is without sin, inherit a sin. Alas, once Rome entangled itself in its own theological opinions, hubris stopped it from caring about the Apostolic Faith less than about the Roman Faith.

The Orthodox Church I go to has a statue on top of the gate. I'm an idolater? Will I go to hell for attending this parish instead of a "more correct" parish?

See, I think this encapsulates a lot of your struggle. Somehow, you seem always to be looking for the trick. But the Church is not for our damnation but for our salvation. If the Church presents you with an icon "in the round," then venerate it with joy. If she holds some important council and removes that icon, then feel gratitude for the safeguard. I am speaking purely hypothetically, and yet these would be two positives, not one the positive and for you to find which as a trick ... This terrible anxiety lest God trick you into damnation must be a painful wound in the soul. The Orthodox Church is an ancient Apostolic church that does its best to work in unity, but this is not the same as to pose in unison. The former is a balm -- "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments; as the dew of Hermon" etc. -- the latter a slavery that, I suspect, must lead to just such suspicion as you seem to suffer from. Our very long history of perceiving and handling heresy is renowned, but most of life is not a matter of heresy ...

Now a word on proselytizing with misguided zeal, as some of the resources you first alluded to seem to consist of. Christ speaks of those religious who in their zeal "bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders" and specifically of those who "compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves": "Woe unto you, ye blind guides!" The Church beckons for the healing of the soul, and what instead torments your sincere soul is almost surely not in the spirit of the Church.

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

Because you could easily extend the same principle to the bishop of Rome, as easily as any other extant schism, until they are "officially" anathematized, couldn't you?

This whole discussion I think demonstrates the kind of "inconsistency" I'm talking about.

From just cursory learnings about Orthodox doctrine, I'm basically told from day 1 that the Orthodox reject the concept of the Immaculate Conception, and you have people like Seraphim Rose and many other conservative Orthodox elders talking about how these "wretched Catholics" are blaspheming the Mother of God, trying to make her into something like an "alien creature."

Yet you have people like Saint Augustine and Saint Gregory Palamas who are open to this very thing which these Orthodox people condemn; that she was an "alien creature" who believe that she was fundamentally changed in order to be sinless and bear Christ; while not the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception - the rejection of inherited guilt - the fundamental logic, that her nature was modified, is still in tact.

So, how would I - as an Orthodox - react to Catholics telling me about "Our Lady of Lourdes?"

This apparition of the Virgin Mary - as many know - appeared to Bernadette, in which she gave the people a miraculous spring of water and said she was "the Immaculate Conception."

Do I curse the apparition, calling it a product of Satan? Or roll my eyes at the naivety of a child?

Or do I leave open the possibility it might actually be the Theotokos - or would this be a blasphemy against Our Lady?

This whole discussion I think demonstrates the kind of "inconsistency" I'm talking about.

From just cursory learnings about Orthodox doctrine, I'm basically told from day 1 that the Orthodox reject the concept of the Immaculate Conception, and you have people like Seraphim Rose and many other conservative Orthodox elders talking about how these "wretched Catholics" are blaspheming the Mother of God, trying to make her into something like an "alien creature."

Yet you have people like Saint Augustine and Saint Gregory Palamas who are open to this very thing which these Orthodox people condemn; that she was an "alien creature" who believe that she was fundamentally changed in order to be sinless and bear Christ; while not the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception - the rejection of inherited guilt - the fundamental logic, that her nature was modified, is still in tact.

So, how would I - as an Orthodox - react to Catholics telling me about "Our Lady of Lourdes?"

This apparition of the Virgin Mary - as many know - appeared to Bernadette, in which she gave the people a miraculous spring of water and said she was "the Immaculate Conception."

Do I curse the apparition, calling it a product of Satan? Or roll my eyes at the naivety of a child?

Or do I leave open the possibility it might actually be the Theotokos - or would this be a blasphemy against Our Lady?

This inconsistency annoys the living junk out of me.

Why do you feel the need to have an opinion about it at all? It's not like the Orthodox Church has officially condemned it. Maybe it was her, maybe it wasn't. We'll all find out on the other side.

Personally, I'm more bothered with the idea that she made a teenager drink mud than I am with the promotion of the IC (which I don't agree with, but wouldn't commit Seppuku or anything if it turned out to be true). But I'm not really interested in Catholicism so I don't feel the need to think much about Lourdes either way.

Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

So, how would I - as an Orthodox - react to Catholics telling me about "Our Lady of Lourdes?"

This apparition of the Virgin Mary - as many know - appeared to Bernadette, in which she gave the people a miraculous spring of water and said she was "the Immaculate Conception."

I truly consider St. Bernadette a great saint. However, she's always been very circumspect and let the clergy speak for her. For instance, her parish priest said that she couldn't possibly know about this recently proclaimed dogma, since she was illiterate and not the kind that reads papal encyclicals, or something along such lines. However, I always wondered if this amazing dogma about the Holy Virgin would have gone quietly down history without its being announced at least across all cathedrals, since all bishops had been consulted by the Vatican before the proclamation of the dogma 4 years before the apparitions. Since Lourdes has had a bishop since the 4th century, I find it likely that St. Bernadette would have heard the terms Immaculate Conception before.

I don't mean to doubt the apparition of the Virgin Mary in Lourdes, but its account is mostly second hand, as the saint chose the anonymity of the cloister and silence for herself. Unlike Fatima, as Sr. Lucia continued having visions and corresponded with many people, not only ecclesiastic authorities, whose account is very much fist hand, but not that it stops certain elements to make up their own conclusions.

What I'm trying to say is that the accounts of apparitions have to be considered separately. The authenticity of the apparitions is in the conversions that follow it, their true goal, rather than defnining church teaching.

This whole discussion I think demonstrates the kind of "inconsistency" I'm talking about.

From just cursory learnings about Orthodox doctrine, I'm basically told from day 1 that the Orthodox reject the concept of the Immaculate Conception, and you have people like Seraphim Rose and many other conservative Orthodox elders talking about how these "wretched Catholics" are blaspheming the Mother of God, trying to make her into something like an "alien creature."

Yet you have people like Saint Augustine and Saint Gregory Palamas who are open to this very thing which these Orthodox people condemn; that she was an "alien creature" who believe that she was fundamentally changed in order to be sinless and bear Christ; while not the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception - the rejection of inherited guilt - the fundamental logic, that her nature was modified, is still in tact.

So, how would I - as an Orthodox - react to Catholics telling me about "Our Lady of Lourdes?"

This apparition of the Virgin Mary - as many know - appeared to Bernadette, in which she gave the people a miraculous spring of water and said she was "the Immaculate Conception."

Do I curse the apparition, calling it a product of Satan? Or roll my eyes at the naivety of a child?

Or do I leave open the possibility it might actually be the Theotokos - or would this be a blasphemy against Our Lady?

This inconsistency annoys the living junk out of me.

Just the fact that you seem to expect to have perfect knowledge of all things makes me question whether it's not the Roman pretensions to exact truth that are what truly, but unconsciously, have done you in.

By the way, I like your arrow.

« Last Edit: November 26, 2017, 04:37:35 PM by Porter ODoran »

Logged

"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue

Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

This whole discussion I think demonstrates the kind of "inconsistency" I'm talking about.

From just cursory learnings about Orthodox doctrine, I'm basically told from day 1 that the Orthodox reject the concept of the Immaculate Conception, and you have people like Seraphim Rose and many other conservative Orthodox elders talking about how these "wretched Catholics" are blaspheming the Mother of God, trying to make her into something like an "alien creature."

Yet you have people like Saint Augustine and Saint Gregory Palamas who are open to this very thing which these Orthodox people condemn; that she was an "alien creature" who believe that she was fundamentally changed in order to be sinless and bear Christ; while not the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception - the rejection of inherited guilt - the fundamental logic, that her nature was modified, is still in tact.

So, how would I - as an Orthodox - react to Catholics telling me about "Our Lady of Lourdes?"

This apparition of the Virgin Mary - as many know - appeared to Bernadette, in which she gave the people a miraculous spring of water and said she was "the Immaculate Conception."

Do I curse the apparition, calling it a product of Satan? Or roll my eyes at the naivety of a child?

Or do I leave open the possibility it might actually be the Theotokos - or would this be a blasphemy against Our Lady?

This inconsistency annoys the living junk out of me.

Just the fact that you seem to expect to have perfect knowledge of all things makes me question whether it's not the Roman pretensions to exact truth that are what truly, but unconsciously, have done you in.

If orthodoxy is good enough for God is good enough for me.Orthodoxy does not have official positon in issues mentioned so there are oppinions.When God is asked which denomination is best he says Orthodoxy

Please read the purpose of the Convert Issues Forum to assure you are following our purpose, if the subject continues to slide downward, I will have to lock it:

The purpose of the Convert issues forum is to provide a a place on the OC.Net where inquirers, catechumen, and newly converted could ask their questions about the Orthodox Faith in a safe and supportive forum without retribution or recrimination. Many of those posting in this area are ignorant of Orthodox teachings and are using this forum to understand what are the basic teachings and practices of the Orthodox churches. Due to the simplicity of many of their requests and responses, direct and simple answers with sources if possible are most helpful.

If the moderators find that the discussions become faith or jurisdiction debates, the topic will be split and sent the appropriate OC.Net forum to continue the discussion or debate. As a poster, you may also ask that a topic be split so that a private discussion can be established to go into detail about the issues that you feel adamant about and wish to debate or discuss. The convert forum is not a place for combative debate or argument.

Thank you for your following these guidelines to the edification and spiritual growth of the forum inquirers, catechumen, and newly converted.